front of us, the questions have been, do we like the proposal and should we proceed? the gets to the question as to whether a proposal that increases rates above pg&e rates is acceptable. the second is whether we can afford to finance it in some way. as to the latter, as we discussed, unless we can figure out how to solve the hetchy fund balance problem overall, with an eye toward it, not putting all the details in place -- we really cannot commit tens of millions of dollars to this kind of a program. i am struck by the chart that was given to us. while the numbers are big, they

are smaller in relation to the -- the total city budget is $6.5 billion. the projected deficit we wrestled with -- 3 rudder $60 million. add back to the board of supervisors. -- $360 million. the numbers are pretty small in relation to that. it is not unreasonable and is good public policy we pursue a process of increasing those rates in any event. if we do that, the proportion is clear. solving the cca funding problem is relatively small. if you solve one, use of the other at the same time. y-- you solve the other at the

same time. we need to do with making the hetchy fund balances standing -- sustainable with without the hetchy fund. we should -- need to put forward a rate proposal that would heal that situation. just to tell you where my thinking is at the moment. if we were to proceed with the kind of program that has the rate premium we're talking about, i would be inclined to go with a smaller program. the increment on that seems to be down in the noise and the extra level of security would be important. as i have said before, especially with cpuc's intention

that there is important. whatever this package is, it comes back to the commission for a go or final no go. i hope that is helpful. president vietor: thank you. >> the board is scheduled to approve that -- that is my point , it is not scheduled. there is some question of whether it might be. secondly, the other issue is, what contact have we had with the rate fairness board that is part of our organization? >> we have not been setting -- >> we have briefed the rate fairness board on the state of the hetch hetchy enterprises' long-term sustainability concern. we have gone through the customs

service -- cost of service and all the rage you have developed. that would have been last winter. what is next up for the rate fairness board, after the general terms of the term sheet and a green light from this body would be to update them on nine months of activity for the fund, tell them the terms here, and then go through the average bill impacts as well and the financial pro formas. that would take a process of 60 days for them to hear it delivered on that and prepare a report which would be their opinions and recommendations. commissioner torres: would that include the decrease? >-- increase?

>> we have not done that today. >> the question is these rates for the -- cca program. >> that has not been before them and it would not go before them until november or december of this year. commissioner torres: these are your timelines? this says first quarter 2012. approval by ius is part of the process. is the rate issues we have been discussing part of that discussion? >> yes, it would be. we would call those meetings to order so they would be able to hear everybody -- everything we have heard today. what the final term sheik was --

sheet was. commissioner torres: i would argue that interaction needs to take place earlier in first quarter 2012. if we are looking at -- if the board scheduled a meeting for the end of this quarter in 2011. we need to be looking and sharing this so that everyone, all the stakeholders are involved in this discussion. they are given a certain responsibility. those of us on the board are appointed to a certain seek on the board which each of us takes very responsibly. i -- if we are going to meet with lafco on october 11, there must be some way to reach out to the rate fairness board so they understand what is occurring. president vietor: i do not know what their calendar is. >> we would be happy to do that earlier.

as well as what we know. commissioner torres: the more eyes we have done these decisions, the better decisions we can all make. not only this body but the board of supervisors. commissioner moran: the is the rate fairness board look at one rate at a time or do they look at programs? >> what they have done in the past as they have provided an opinion on the five-year rate increases for water. they have looked at the multi year increase for the public power rates. we would brief them on the four and a half year proposed program for this in the case of cca rates. commissioner torres: on the timing question, we may need to start before we have a final term sheet or anything from cpuc. that program could start out on

one level and anticipate increases in future years. i think thei think that the reat we get from the board of supervisors and from the mayor's office on that first year of the program will be a pretty significant indicator on if we can take comfort in that or not. >> i will work with the rate fairness board to carry out your wishes. >> we still have a ways to go, it feels like. there is still interest and commitment, we have the lafco meeting coming up and that will be a place to air these considerations. people have been working on this for many years, and it feels like the time has come for us to really decide on the best way

forward. we will continue to drive this and move it to what is hopefully a successful conclusion. if there are no other comments, in the interest of time, i will move us along. >> if i could skip to 7c, it will be a fairly short discussion. on june 28, there was an item before the commission that was providing grants to job training agencies. a resolution that you adopted had various whereas's. it also talked about the project labor unit. and the building trade council came to us said that they were quite disturbed that it confused the issue and it seemed there was a connection with the private labor agreement that did

not exist and they were quite concerned that we were mixing things that were inappropriate to mix. you have a lett me clarify that that resolution did not in any way try to change the rules of law that we have with us today and the ordinance does not affect the project labor agreement and to make sure that we did public comment to that to make sure that it was clear that they did not indicate anything different from current law. i wanted to mention that. i'm not sure if he wants to say anything or not. but that is that item. >> will take public comment on this item. >> maybe when i read the agenda,

i read it wrong. it seemed to say that the local job hiring he did not have anything to do with the jobs that will be coming through you. that is how i read it. what is really strange to me, in 1958, i am going to go back. when the redevelopment agency came to the hunters point, there was going to be a lot of development. by san francisco being a union town, we were not getting the jobs. i was one of those that went to the labour council and at that time, it was dan smith that was

the secretary. i said, if you intend to have workers, i will make sure that people from my community, we got a memorandum of understanding through the city planning department that 51% of the workers that would work on executive park would come from bayview hunters point. we want to have something on record. stan smith became the board member. and the statement at that time was a person, they would go and stan smith would approve the fact that it was coming through to work and it would join the union. in the 1970's, that is what we did. that has been 40 years.

and my question, because i know he is here, i couldn't believe, when i found out a few months ago, he is the vice president of the black organization and opposes local hiring. i could not understand that. when i started asking about of prejudice, what people can become, i would like to have some statistics of how many people from dave you hunters point had become an apprentice or a journeyman. it is ridiculous to me that a man of that statute being head of local labor union of posing -- and what he has written is

disgusting. and he said he is not a racist. thank you. >> again, every chance i get to thank the general manager for his ongoing support for local hiring, it was critical for the city moving forward and adopting an outcome space and approached to local hiring. clearly, it is just starting to go into play. the first contracts are coming in. it is exciting what we are seeing with this new law, and there is a new generation of folks getting into these opportunities. we have partnerships with some of the union's, but that as part

of the process. i am glad that stuff is resolved. a lot of this is about a paper tiger, but i do want to point out, there are working with a representative to work that stuff out. and the third paragraph that is cited, it doesn't technically -- the sentence reads, they confirmed the list of projects were expressly exempted from the board of supervisors ordinance. if you look at the end of the sentence, i am looking at line 18-19. they said is exempted where the terms of the existing poa's

and policy are in conflict. in what is great about not just the investment in the region that was kind of the root of this concern, but by coming together around the spirit of the local hiring ordinance was to work locally as well as regionally. we had to work together to make this happen. technically what you have done here to invest in the region that is a majority funded by taxpayers, you embrace the very body of the local hiring ordinance. if it can be taken as a friendly amendment, but to say expressly exempted were the terms of existing poa'la's are in conflit with the policy.

i think supporting the community is the perfect. and complying with the terminology. >> we have to more speaker cards. mr. paulson and mur. luca -- mr. lucas. >> i was out in the hallway canceling a doctors appointment. i wanted to speak to this issue of local hiring. i have then in business here for the past 22 years. local hiring, the ordinance is mandatory. for many years, we have dealt with the human rights commission and a few other people that basically have no oversight. there is no compliance control. what i have experienced in

losses under the good faith effort, the use you to meet the goal. once the goal is met, you don't get called to do the work. the job has come and gone, there is no recourse. if the playing field was level, we would not need -- we would not need a local hiring ordinances'. but since it isn't, that is how we do. we have compliance officers that are supposed to be trained. they don't visit the job sites. the city has gotten to into the simulation system. many of us don't even belong on the collation systems. i am a trucker. first of all, this is certified.

a certified hero meaning that going and, you are stating that you were from friday of last week to friday of this week. you made x amount of dollars and x amount of check numbers. they pay us when they get ready. i have a whole bunch of problems with the way that it is structured. >> i have a couple of businesses that have gone under. i know a lot of truckers are struggling. when they are paying, first of all, there are supported by an hourly rate. if you are being paid by the load, they have already exempted you. what we have going is old.

they are being used by the load. san francisco general is a good example. from san francisco general down to stamford, you have to pay the driver's $48.80 an hour out of that $50 alone. i am honored. i have the overhead on that piece of equipment. it cost $18 to cross bridges now. our diesel was just backing down from $5 a gallon. insurance runs anywhere from 1500 to $8,000 a month depending on how many pieces of equipment that you have to have. good-faith died in 1950. they will send me a fax at and asked me, all of the certifiable information.

my federal id number, my fax number, my e-mail. if i am stupid enough to submit it to them, how they can plug me. >> your time is up, if you want to submit your comments and writing, you can. >> we need a local hiring ordinance in place. >> eric brooks once again submitting the san francisco green party and the grass-roots organization. and this one to amplify what people have said about local hiring. especially, you know, some of us have made a run with the staff. but especially the general

manager and his staff have been standing tall and the stellar on moving aggressively towards strong local hiring for our community and need to be commended for that. it is not always just doing it by the letter of a lot, it is pushing the envelope and doing better. we have all been watching the news and making sure that the unemployment rate is not going down at, regardless of what the stock market is doing. we need to make sure that we are strong on local hiring. it is good that we have clarified what the law is with relation to programs. it does not mean that a lot is not written completely in stone. there is flexibility there. i would hope to see general manager continue their stellar work to increase local hiring in

this department and in the city as a whole. i would hope that the trades would also step up to the plate on that since local hiring organizers have been very careful to be strongly pointed out that we want local hiring. we want those local jobs to feed into the union's and make those unions stronger. lead in the trades to step up and help this process. getting back to the previous item we are talking about, advocates are pushing for a local bill out of clean energy that will deliver 1000 jobs a year. it is an opportunity for grass- roots organizers and the environmental justice community to come together with the trades and together to work to build a lot more jobs in san francisco.

the overall point here is that they have been exhibiting a stellar leadership on this issue. hopefully the trades will step up and help the process forward. let's make sure that we are always pushing the envelope and getting better local hiring whenever we possibly can. >> i have tremendous faith and long experience in the ability of african-american workers to succeed admirably once they become a journey level workers, once they have -- i tell you as

a person with great pride, once you are a journeyman, your work must speak for itself. that is why you need, that is what we need. we compete with the non-union sector. i know african-american workers can do that. i have seen its. and mandatory local hire policy, we are past that debate. it is nonsense to say that i am not in support of local hire, i am in support of a different approach. >> will sir -- walter paulson. thank you. ♪ i have been through the desert with a horse like a work horse with no chains in the desert you feel a lot of pain you fix it all the same ♪

♪ na na na na na ♪ in the desert you let the horse run free won't you fix it up please ♪ >> thank you. >> i want to see a duet with him and miss jackson. >> other comment? can we take a five minute break or finished the general managers' report? >> in the interest of time, we can skip 7b. >> why don't we take a five minute break and continue with the agenda on the consent calendar.